Author Topic: Ammusing pager message. (Read 1822295 times)

Manuel · « **Reply #725 on:** August 03, 2006, 04:56:37 PM »

yea i agree it was not that big, but yea for my second fire, yea it was big. but KI was big

and i went there

firetruck · « **Reply #726 on:** August 03, 2006, 09:57:18 PM »

Quote from: Manuel on August 03, 2006, 04:56:37 PM

yea i agree it was not that big, but yea for my second fire, yea it was big. but KI was big and i went there

the top posters board is just days away.......

corecutters · « **Reply #727 on:** August 03, 2006, 11:21:14 PM »

Quote from: Manuel on August 03, 2006, 04:56:37 PM

yea i agree it was not that big, but yea for my second fire, yea it was big. but KI was big and i went there

Just out of interest, what is the latest rules / requirements for Strike Team deployments, regarding age, training and active service?

Thanks.

Toast · « **Reply #728 on:** August 04, 2006, 01:34:48 AM »

Quote from: Manuel on August 04, 2006, 12:38:29 AM

I do not want to wait around a few years before i can get some.

Its ok buddy. You don't have to wait around. You're just down the road from Barker?

(HINT: Take some money with you, it will probably help)

standpipe · « **Reply #729 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:15:22 PM »

Quote from: Manuel on August 04, 2006, 12:38:29 AM

(spelling),

?

medevac · « **Reply #730 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:22:59 PM »

cos he doesnt know how to spell COOMANDOOK

PF_ · « **Reply #731 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:30:22 PM »

or murrAy bridge

Manuel · « **Reply #732 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:35:01 PM »

stop paying out my spelolling, mey speel check is not worcing.

medevac · « **Reply #733 on:** August 04, 2006, 07:48:52 PM »

And i do kind of wonder what "eyre ply" was meant to be

presumably eyre peninsula....

were just shittin' ya

Manuel · « **Reply #734 on:** August 05, 2006, 02:02:15 PM »

ok back on topic

SHQ: CFSRES YORKETOWN RESPOND 12 VICTORIA STREET, YORKETOWN - CHILD WITH FINGERS STUCK IN DRAIN, BADLY SWOLLEN - SAAS ON SCENE < 5/08/2006 00:11:36

WTF, that gotta hurt

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #735 on:** August 05, 2006, 02:09:56 PM »

SHQ: CFSRES PT WAKEFIELD RESPOND MVA HWY ONE, LOCHIEL, , 20 KMS NORTH PT WAKEFIELD , CAR ROLLOVER, 3RD DEFAULT, ALSO NO RESPONSE FROM SES < 4/08/2006 00:59:43 CFS - Wakefield Plains Group

I hope it wasn't bad..

corecutters · « **Reply #736 on:** August 05, 2006, 02:14:40 PM »

30 kms north of Pt Wakefield... Isn't that in Pt Wakefields Rescue area anyway ? ... Im guessing no was was reported trapped though as it was only a response to an MVA, not an RCR.

CC

Toast · « **Reply #737 on:** August 05, 2006, 03:42:27 PM »

Confirmed MFA from SAPol, page came out a little later...

corecutters · « **Reply #738 on:** August 05, 2006, 03:54:41 PM »

MFS: RESPOND RCR 05/08/06 01:49,SYCAMORE RD,MT GAMBIER, MAP 0 0 0 ,,FROM MT GAMBIER POLICE CAR V TREE NO PERSONS TRAPPED,74629 701*CFSRES

So why were SES responded?

CFS_Firey · « **Reply #739 on:** August 05, 2006, 04:01:53 PM »

This one from a few weeks ago;

MFS: RESPOND Vehicle Accident 08/07/06 22:44,MT BARKER RD,BRIDGEWATER, MAP 146 F 15 ,,FROM POLICE - MINOR ACCIDENT - NO ENTRAPMENT - NO SPILL - NO CLEANUP REQUIRED- POLICE MESSAGE NO 1128,9019 8924*CFSRES:

Why was anyone responded, let alone 2 brigades?

Robert-Robert34 · « **Reply #740 on:** August 05, 2006, 04:41:10 PM »

Heres another one from early this arvo

1909290 12:23:20 05-08-06 SHQ: *CFSRES: NARACOORTE RESPOND MVA, JONES ST, NARACOORTE CNR OF SMITH STREET. NO FURTHER DETAILS... <

I wonder if our mate Blinky responded to it

Toast · « **Reply #741 on:** August 05, 2006, 05:47:15 PM »

Jones and Smith St. eh? Sounds like someone became bored with making up street names.

Camo · « **Reply #742 on:** August 05, 2006, 07:36:58 PM »

SES are still responded because:

1) There could be another car that was missed that could have someone trapped.

2) Traffic control

Camo

PF_ · « **Reply #743 on:** August 05, 2006, 08:15:34 PM »

Quote from: CFS_firey on August 05, 2006, 04:01:53 PM

This one from a few weeks ago;

MFS: RESPOND Vehicle Accident 08/07/06 22:44,MT BARKER RD,BRIDGEWATER, MAP 146 F 15 ,,FROM POLICE - MINOR ACCIDENT - NO ENTRAPMENT - NO SPILL - NO CLEANUP REQUIRED- POLICE MESSAGE NO 1128,9019 8924*CFSRES:

Why was anyone responded, let alone 2 brigades?

Maybe someone involved was under shock and made it seem worse when they called 000, no idea

rescue5271 · « **Reply #744 on:** August 05, 2006, 08:27:14 PM »

Two car MVA was outside the new baker did traffice control and clean up..call was a pass a by call into the station....

corecutters · « **Reply #745 on:** August 05, 2006, 08:49:18 PM »

Quote from: Camo on August 05, 2006, 07:36:58 PM

SES are still responded because:

1) There could be another car that was missed that could have someone trapped.

2) Traffic control

Camo

Understandanly... But with SAPOL on scene you would presume traffic control would be their responsibility, and with it being Car vs Tree, No entrapments specifically identified -(From SAPOL), and with Mt Gambier MFS attending, to me it is a wasted resource...

If it were a rescue, I would understand.. but yea... Im guessing they were stopped prior to arrival?? - Senior F/Fighter70 , any ideas?

F.B.R.T · « **Reply #746 on:** August 05, 2006, 09:15:21 PM »

They make their own rules!!

I don't think they take stop calls from any other service.

Most the time when we are dispatched we know if there are any entrapments from comms.

I often think if in doubt, call them,(as per road crash rescue resource directory) but if a service on scene(e.g. Police) says that there is no entrapment and that they have traffic control under control, then they probably don't need to be there.

A fire service whether it be SACFS or SAMFS should still attend to make seen safe and clean up as that is a role police don't perform and nor should they have to.

Anyway, my opinion only, but I would be interested to see what others think!

corecutters · « **Reply #747 on:** August 05, 2006, 10:36:20 PM »

^ Couldn't agree more or have said it better myself !!

CC

Camo · « **Reply #748 on:** August 06, 2006, 08:32:36 PM »

Quote from: Senior Firery70 on August 05, 2006, 09:15:21 PM

They make their own rules!!

I don't think they take stop calls from any other service.

Most the time when we are dispatched we know if there are any entrapments from comms.

I often think if in doubt, call them,(as per road crash rescue resource directory) but if a service on scene(e.g. Police) says that there is no entrapment and that they have traffic control under control, then they probably don't need to be there.

A fire service whether it be SACFS or SAMFS should still attend to make seen safe and clean up as that is a role police don't perform and nor should they have to.

Anyway, my opinion only, but I would be interested to see what others think!

But we cant go diddling them out of call outs....they will think its a big conspiracy to make them redundant!

medevac · « **Reply #749 on:** August 06, 2006, 08:38:23 PM »

and here i was thinking everyone had a fairly basic (at least) understanding of incident responses...

per the RCR Resource Directory; police, SAAS, fire and rescue must be responded to ALL motor vehicle related accidents outside the metropolitan area.

its a good read that some ppl obviously need to take a look at??

Author Topic: Ammusing pager message. (Read 1822295 times)

Manuel

corecutters

Toast

PF_

Manuel

Manuel

corecutters

Toast

corecutters

Toast

PF_

rescue5271

corecutters

corecutters